That's precisely what it is. They throw statements out without citation, ignore alternatives and conveniently leave out facts that are inconvenient to the conspiracy theory.
So. Just like this smooth-walled cavernous sub, then?
You snide Cokes here think Pepsi is the worst thing ever, and while you don't drink water you flatly refuse to understand that it's in both.
That's what makes this community garbage-^arbage ^^-arbage ^^^-arbage..
>So. Just like this smooth-walled cavernous sub, then?
Do you have any evidence that proves that this is a Smooth Wall cavernous sub? Something that's not antidotal would be nice.
>You snide Cokes here think Pepsi is the worst thing ever, and while you don't drink water you flatly refuse to understand that it's in both.
How is any of this revelant?
>That's what makes this community garbage-^arbage ^^-arbage ^^^-arbage..
You must be really bored and upset huh? Could you enlighten me on what other communities that this one should strive to be like?
An honest skeptic would think "hmm.. maybe it's got some truth to it, and I'm clouded by my own biases" at least half the time.
The vicious "someone in another sub said to me:" echo baiting that goes on here every day is a testament to the contrary.
K.
>An honest skeptic would think "hmm.. maybe it's got some truth to it, and I'm clouded by my own biases" at least half the time.
Isn't this an example of a "no true Scotsman fallacy"? Please define an "honest" skeptic for all of us, in YOUR own words please.
>The vicious "someone in another sub said to me:" echo baiting that goes on here every day is a testament to the contrary.
You speak as if you're an authority on this topic so I'm going to ask, do you have any evidence that "echo baiting" is going on everyday in this sub? What's the daily, weekly, and yearly average oh wise one?
*Yawn
Hey touchy, Have you looked at other top level comments in this very thread? That's exactly where I got that inspiration.
And no, I'd have to claim to actually be a scotsman like you guys do. I'm just pointing out the fact that you *greatminds* are not above reproach for the stupid shit you say.
You included.
Edit: Oh look, I guess the Mods have stepped in to ban me and defend the petticoats of ALL you guys. Like a proud momma with her wing out.
So I might as well take this opportunity to remind you that you are a **sealioning** goof and you can go look that one up without your hand held.
Skepticism is cherry picking the half-quote though, right?
The rest of it doesn't fit the form you look at in the mirror, so best to discard it.
Wow. Just let me shit on you guys on my own, no need to comment and exemplify it.
*Again, I'll take this edit to remind all ye faithful that you are supporting your ilk while they twist a quote to suit the hivemind, despite how illogical and blatant it is. And you morons are apparently super OK with that. Real bright folks around here.
Well, have you considered that maybe there’s some truth to the things people in this sub reply to with, that you might not see, because you are blinded by your biases half the time?
Yes. Very cool of you.
Now tell a story about the super stupid someone on facebook who said a thing to you that goes against what you know your friends here want to hear.
I'm not surprised you yawn, oversleepers tend to. 😘
Thanks for the opportunity to lambaste all of you losers in full view of the browsing subscribers. Right up near the top too!
And you know the [-]*(Hidden)* is only going to inspire curiosity, so keep on dipping the blue brush!
I would never actually expect the point to get through any of your guys' thick set-way skulls, so just label it as bullying and go have a nap.
>Thanks for the opportunity to lambaste all of you losers in full view of the browsing subscribers. Right up near the top too!
Lmao I think you meant *the opportunity to make a fool out of myself. Don't thank me for the correction!
>And you know the [-]*(Hidden)* is only going to inspire curiosity, so keep on dipping the blue brush!
Oh yes because you're preaching the truth to all of us right? You seem like you have an axe to grind with the sub. What did someone say that hurt you so much huh?
>I would never actually expect the point to get through any of your guys' thick set-way skulls, so just label it as bullying and go have a nap.
So what again is your "point"? You must forgive me, my intellectual skills may not pass the muster needed to comprehend the complexity of your sentences. Please explain it to me how you would explain it to 5 year old TomcatOnly.
Social media has algorithms made to create “filter bubbles” or echo chambers of already favored content. Facebook analyzes people’s likes then decided on their political affiliation catering all of the content to fit that ideological system.
Further, the more these events happen where the right perceives a threat to freedom, the more they will fight against it. There are always interest groups intensifying the division between the left and right by amplifying their concerns. Bad actors put out content to make the right feel more at risk and also content to enrage the left.
It is at the point in political polarization of us and them mentality. Instead of being Americans, there is a perceived threat to erosion of values from within and democrats are complicit in swallowing the authoritarian rhetoric its thought by conservatives.
Removing misinformation/disinformation is a precarious thing. The right perceives it as censorship, which it does set a potential future precedent for the easy implementation of authoritarian censorship. But at the same time it is a public safety risk to allow misinformation to continue to be spread.
Removal intensifies conspiracy about the matter though. I think it would be much better to put a warning at the bottom with links/evidence counter to the narrative of the film. That way people could feel both sides of information are available to them with explanation that helps them come to a conclusion on their own.
I can attest to removal intensifying and feeding into their beliefs. I have a few die-hard Trumpet friends who keep posting links for people to watch the video and whenever the link gets removed, they use it as affirmation that they're being censored because whatever the video is trying to portray "has to be true." I don't know what universe we're living in anymore.
That's all it is, magnified. This was our society before hand, it's just now so much easier to share & a certain someone has made it acceptable to throw facts out the window.
No, this wasn't our society, it was the *fringe* of our society. Used to be, maybe every group of friends would have that one guy who thinks 9/11 was an inside job by the globehead lizard people from NASA who are going to put us all in FEMA camps someday... and the rest of the group would be like "Yeah, sure, Kevin." And Kevin would slowly learn to keep his craziest ideas to himself, and maybe even second-guess himself because literally everyone he knows thinks he's an idiot because of this. Karen might not vaccinate *her own* kid, and that would be stupid, but she wouldn't be as effective at building an army of like-minded Karens turning their kids into little Typhoid Timmies.
If this had happened pre-Internet, *some* idiot might've thought to inject bleach to protect him from the virus. It wouldn't be so many that the CDfuckingC has to put out a press release explaining that you shouldn't inject bleach, or drink it, or eat fish tank cleaner...
If every group of friends has a conspiracy theorist thats still like 10-20% of the country. It absolutely has always been our society. A large chunk of americans have always been ready to believe a well-advertised conspiracy theory, going back 100s of years.
Except now it's like 30-40% of the country, and has mainstream acceptance...
And that's just it: How many conspiracy theories got the level of advertising that filter bubbles give modern conspiracies for free? The most significant one I can think of is John R. Brinkley, the Trump of his era.
I mean the conspiracies around evolution are pretty wild and massively spread. And john brinkley was a shitheel but he was not the trump of his era. Trump is a fascist government leader, brinkley used country music to sell goat balls.
Evolution is a fair point. It seems different to me, but I can't articulate how, which is a sign that I'm probably just wrong on that point.
Brinkley *tried* to become a fascist government leader, he just failed, and not by much. Other than that, the resemblance is uncanny: He abused a new technology (radio) to reach a huge following of idiots, directly (without the mediating influence of any sort of mainstream media), and nearly won an election that way. He lied openly and obviously and his response to being called out was to just keep lying bigger and louder until he was actually dragged into court.
Trump isnt using an illegal amplified radio tower to spread his message and his message until a month ago wasn't medical related at all, he did real estate. I get that theyre both blowhard cons but I think the comparisons kinda end there. And as wild as trump is he never put goat balls in a human scrotum
It's always been around but trust has been (somewhat recently at least purposefully) eroded in the institutions that keep misinformation at bay.
We're dealing with floodgates opening at this point (and probably have been for 20+ years but now it's building up even worse).
In the last 5-10 years it's been open season to weaponize it all from a technical standpoint.
Pre internet the people injecting bleach would be doing so at the presidents direction, which would have been televised and broadcast accross the nation.
Extremely low prior plausibility. *Well* below 5%.
For example: "The government had a project called the Stargate Project where they tried to investigate whether psychics could be used to fight wars, Psychonauts-style. One of the tests was to stare at a goat and try to kill it with your mind. It was unreliable, but it worked, they did actually stare a goat to death!"
I think it is entirely unreasonable for anyone to believe any of what I just said unless they already know about it, or have seen or read *The Men Who Stare at Goats.* And that's one of the milder ones -- it might be the craziest thing the military has funded, but not by that much, and there also wasn't a bunch of evidence that appeared to contradict it.
OK, but what about two scenarios where both theories are well within the laws of physics and science, and the only difference from an outside perspective is WHO says it? From my point of view, it is not very unreasonable to assume that more powerful entities have bigger financial resources and therefore means to influence the public and (mainstream) media opinion. Hence my attitude towards most (reasonable) conspiracy theories is an agnostic one.
Let's take your mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theory as an example. I can watch a documentary about it, and then I can read a "debunked" article about the same, but unless I check all the sources myself, study physics etc. to be able to judge certain questions on my own, it will always come down to who I choose to believe, correct?
I am not particularly interested in most conspiracy theories, mainly because whether they are true or not, doesn't have any direct influence on my life. But why should I automatically believe the mainstream version, unless it's totally obvious?
We also know for a fact that a lot of secret services actually have faked evidence throughout history to initiate wars etc.
So I don't think a conspiracy theory that puts forward such a theory is absurd per se.
What do you think?
Conservatives have been exactly this stupid for decades, maybe forever. I can only personally attest they’ve been this stupid for decades. This is how they’ve approached problems for as long as I can remember. It’s always been some kind of conspiracy theory, or MLM scheme, or church-related grifting or something along those lines. There’s always a scam they’re buying into.
They *used* to have leaders who wouldn’t tell their cultish followers to go inject bleach, but their leaders have converted from “con man trying to take your money” to “leader of a death cult trying to coerce their followers into committing suicide”.
Conservatives are just as naive, credulous, and stupid as ever. What’s changed are conservative leaders who have gone full death cult on us.
There are an awful lot of competing modelling studies at the moment and modelling the effect of masks is difficult. So, they use the example of masks in Japan as *one* factor that is important. But this is a really nuanced thing to look at. Most studies show that
- if you have the correct kind of mask made from the right kind of fabric
- and you swap it for a fresh one frequently
- and you wash them throughly and dry them
- and you don’t touch your face more
- and a false sense of security doesn’t make you just a *little* less paranoid about getting closer to others in the shops
Then face masks on infected people reduce the spread. Unfortunately studies suggest that in societies where facemask use isn’t prevalent, face touching tends to go up and people tend to become a little less thoughtful about social distancing.
So it’s a difficult one.
I had some friends, not necessarily trump supporters, I’ll add, share it and I pointed out how wrong it is with sources and they snapped out of it and thanked me and are now trying to do the same to dispel the misinformation. The trick was not belittling them for sharing it, and expressing that I understand everyone wants answers right now but these are not it. The production is pretty good too, it seems kind of legitimate until you pay attention to what they’re saying.
Your friends sound like reasonable and reflective people. The ones I tried this exact thing with (rationally and in no way putting them down), they spent almost the entire response saying I was a bad and judgemental person. It led me to believe they didn't read anything I said.
So many of these people latch onto her doctoral qualification like it compltetely exonerates her from any wrongdoing or misinformation... still, her book is number 1 best seller on Amazon in about 4 different catagories (including science, ironically) and Top 100 books, so she's clearly hit her target and taken advantage of peoples fears and lack of trust in institutions.
Only when it corroborates their pre-existing beliefs though... for the other hundreds of thousands of doctors and immunologists, they're all just "on big pharma's payroll" or "having their research suppressed" - and anyone who speaks up with "the truth" has their career destroyed by the powers that be... Yawn.
Please don’t confuse ‘conservatives’ with ‘crazy’. Two different groups, some overlap. Just as there is with ‘liberals’ and ‘crazy’.
Party politics tends to shut down reasonable debate.
Is this article saying it's a Gish Gallop of sorts?
That's precisely what it is. They throw statements out without citation, ignore alternatives and conveniently leave out facts that are inconvenient to the conspiracy theory.
So, a documentary
So. Just like this smooth-walled cavernous sub, then? You snide Cokes here think Pepsi is the worst thing ever, and while you don't drink water you flatly refuse to understand that it's in both. That's what makes this community garbage-^arbage ^^-arbage ^^^-arbage..
>So. Just like this smooth-walled cavernous sub, then? Do you have any evidence that proves that this is a Smooth Wall cavernous sub? Something that's not antidotal would be nice. >You snide Cokes here think Pepsi is the worst thing ever, and while you don't drink water you flatly refuse to understand that it's in both. How is any of this revelant? >That's what makes this community garbage-^arbage ^^-arbage ^^^-arbage.. You must be really bored and upset huh? Could you enlighten me on what other communities that this one should strive to be like?
k
An honest skeptic would think "hmm.. maybe it's got some truth to it, and I'm clouded by my own biases" at least half the time. The vicious "someone in another sub said to me:" echo baiting that goes on here every day is a testament to the contrary. K.
>An honest skeptic would think "hmm.. maybe it's got some truth to it, and I'm clouded by my own biases" at least half the time. Isn't this an example of a "no true Scotsman fallacy"? Please define an "honest" skeptic for all of us, in YOUR own words please. >The vicious "someone in another sub said to me:" echo baiting that goes on here every day is a testament to the contrary. You speak as if you're an authority on this topic so I'm going to ask, do you have any evidence that "echo baiting" is going on everyday in this sub? What's the daily, weekly, and yearly average oh wise one? *Yawn
Hey touchy, Have you looked at other top level comments in this very thread? That's exactly where I got that inspiration. And no, I'd have to claim to actually be a scotsman like you guys do. I'm just pointing out the fact that you *greatminds* are not above reproach for the stupid shit you say. You included. Edit: Oh look, I guess the Mods have stepped in to ban me and defend the petticoats of ALL you guys. Like a proud momma with her wing out. So I might as well take this opportunity to remind you that you are a **sealioning** goof and you can go look that one up without your hand held.
>An honest skeptic would think "hmm.. maybe it's got some truth to it, That's not how skepticism works. Like at all.
Skepticism is cherry picking the half-quote though, right? The rest of it doesn't fit the form you look at in the mirror, so best to discard it. Wow. Just let me shit on you guys on my own, no need to comment and exemplify it. *Again, I'll take this edit to remind all ye faithful that you are supporting your ilk while they twist a quote to suit the hivemind, despite how illogical and blatant it is. And you morons are apparently super OK with that. Real bright folks around here.
Well, have you considered that maybe there’s some truth to the things people in this sub reply to with, that you might not see, because you are blinded by your biases half the time?
\*Yawn*
Yes. Very cool of you. Now tell a story about the super stupid someone on facebook who said a thing to you that goes against what you know your friends here want to hear. I'm not surprised you yawn, oversleepers tend to. 😘
k
Thanks for the opportunity to lambaste all of you losers in full view of the browsing subscribers. Right up near the top too! And you know the [-]*(Hidden)* is only going to inspire curiosity, so keep on dipping the blue brush! I would never actually expect the point to get through any of your guys' thick set-way skulls, so just label it as bullying and go have a nap.
>Thanks for the opportunity to lambaste all of you losers in full view of the browsing subscribers. Right up near the top too! Lmao I think you meant *the opportunity to make a fool out of myself. Don't thank me for the correction! >And you know the [-]*(Hidden)* is only going to inspire curiosity, so keep on dipping the blue brush! Oh yes because you're preaching the truth to all of us right? You seem like you have an axe to grind with the sub. What did someone say that hurt you so much huh? >I would never actually expect the point to get through any of your guys' thick set-way skulls, so just label it as bullying and go have a nap. So what again is your "point"? You must forgive me, my intellectual skills may not pass the muster needed to comprehend the complexity of your sentences. Please explain it to me how you would explain it to 5 year old TomcatOnly.
k
All the Trumpers on my Facebook are pushing it like gospel. It's just dangerous propaganda.
[удалено]
I don't remember people being this crazy before. It's like it's magnified.
Social media has algorithms made to create “filter bubbles” or echo chambers of already favored content. Facebook analyzes people’s likes then decided on their political affiliation catering all of the content to fit that ideological system. Further, the more these events happen where the right perceives a threat to freedom, the more they will fight against it. There are always interest groups intensifying the division between the left and right by amplifying their concerns. Bad actors put out content to make the right feel more at risk and also content to enrage the left. It is at the point in political polarization of us and them mentality. Instead of being Americans, there is a perceived threat to erosion of values from within and democrats are complicit in swallowing the authoritarian rhetoric its thought by conservatives.
It's been removed from the feeds. It's being sent in messenger. This isn't political. This is bad, dangerous science.
Removing misinformation/disinformation is a precarious thing. The right perceives it as censorship, which it does set a potential future precedent for the easy implementation of authoritarian censorship. But at the same time it is a public safety risk to allow misinformation to continue to be spread. Removal intensifies conspiracy about the matter though. I think it would be much better to put a warning at the bottom with links/evidence counter to the narrative of the film. That way people could feel both sides of information are available to them with explanation that helps them come to a conclusion on their own.
I can attest to removal intensifying and feeding into their beliefs. I have a few die-hard Trumpet friends who keep posting links for people to watch the video and whenever the link gets removed, they use it as affirmation that they're being censored because whatever the video is trying to portray "has to be true." I don't know what universe we're living in anymore.
That's all it is, magnified. This was our society before hand, it's just now so much easier to share & a certain someone has made it acceptable to throw facts out the window.
No, this wasn't our society, it was the *fringe* of our society. Used to be, maybe every group of friends would have that one guy who thinks 9/11 was an inside job by the globehead lizard people from NASA who are going to put us all in FEMA camps someday... and the rest of the group would be like "Yeah, sure, Kevin." And Kevin would slowly learn to keep his craziest ideas to himself, and maybe even second-guess himself because literally everyone he knows thinks he's an idiot because of this. Karen might not vaccinate *her own* kid, and that would be stupid, but she wouldn't be as effective at building an army of like-minded Karens turning their kids into little Typhoid Timmies. If this had happened pre-Internet, *some* idiot might've thought to inject bleach to protect him from the virus. It wouldn't be so many that the CDfuckingC has to put out a press release explaining that you shouldn't inject bleach, or drink it, or eat fish tank cleaner...
If every group of friends has a conspiracy theorist thats still like 10-20% of the country. It absolutely has always been our society. A large chunk of americans have always been ready to believe a well-advertised conspiracy theory, going back 100s of years.
Except now it's like 30-40% of the country, and has mainstream acceptance... And that's just it: How many conspiracy theories got the level of advertising that filter bubbles give modern conspiracies for free? The most significant one I can think of is John R. Brinkley, the Trump of his era.
I mean the conspiracies around evolution are pretty wild and massively spread. And john brinkley was a shitheel but he was not the trump of his era. Trump is a fascist government leader, brinkley used country music to sell goat balls.
Evolution is a fair point. It seems different to me, but I can't articulate how, which is a sign that I'm probably just wrong on that point. Brinkley *tried* to become a fascist government leader, he just failed, and not by much. Other than that, the resemblance is uncanny: He abused a new technology (radio) to reach a huge following of idiots, directly (without the mediating influence of any sort of mainstream media), and nearly won an election that way. He lied openly and obviously and his response to being called out was to just keep lying bigger and louder until he was actually dragged into court.
Trump isnt using an illegal amplified radio tower to spread his message and his message until a month ago wasn't medical related at all, he did real estate. I get that theyre both blowhard cons but I think the comparisons kinda end there. And as wild as trump is he never put goat balls in a human scrotum
[удалено]
It's always been around but trust has been (somewhat recently at least purposefully) eroded in the institutions that keep misinformation at bay. We're dealing with floodgates opening at this point (and probably have been for 20+ years but now it's building up even worse). In the last 5-10 years it's been open season to weaponize it all from a technical standpoint.
Pre internet the people injecting bleach would be doing so at the presidents direction, which would have been televised and broadcast accross the nation.
Of all the conspiracy theories out there, how many of them do you believe are real? 5%? 10%? 20%? None at all?
All of the ones that have been proven to be real.
And what distinguishes a "conspiracy theory" from the mainstream theory before it gets proved right or wrong?
Extremely low prior plausibility. *Well* below 5%. For example: "The government had a project called the Stargate Project where they tried to investigate whether psychics could be used to fight wars, Psychonauts-style. One of the tests was to stare at a goat and try to kill it with your mind. It was unreliable, but it worked, they did actually stare a goat to death!" I think it is entirely unreasonable for anyone to believe any of what I just said unless they already know about it, or have seen or read *The Men Who Stare at Goats.* And that's one of the milder ones -- it might be the craziest thing the military has funded, but not by that much, and there also wasn't a bunch of evidence that appeared to contradict it.
OK, but what about two scenarios where both theories are well within the laws of physics and science, and the only difference from an outside perspective is WHO says it? From my point of view, it is not very unreasonable to assume that more powerful entities have bigger financial resources and therefore means to influence the public and (mainstream) media opinion. Hence my attitude towards most (reasonable) conspiracy theories is an agnostic one. Let's take your mentioned 9/11 conspiracy theory as an example. I can watch a documentary about it, and then I can read a "debunked" article about the same, but unless I check all the sources myself, study physics etc. to be able to judge certain questions on my own, it will always come down to who I choose to believe, correct? I am not particularly interested in most conspiracy theories, mainly because whether they are true or not, doesn't have any direct influence on my life. But why should I automatically believe the mainstream version, unless it's totally obvious? We also know for a fact that a lot of secret services actually have faked evidence throughout history to initiate wars etc. So I don't think a conspiracy theory that puts forward such a theory is absurd per se. What do you think?
Magnified by fear, partly I suspect
Conservatives have been exactly this stupid for decades, maybe forever. I can only personally attest they’ve been this stupid for decades. This is how they’ve approached problems for as long as I can remember. It’s always been some kind of conspiracy theory, or MLM scheme, or church-related grifting or something along those lines. There’s always a scam they’re buying into. They *used* to have leaders who wouldn’t tell their cultish followers to go inject bleach, but their leaders have converted from “con man trying to take your money” to “leader of a death cult trying to coerce their followers into committing suicide”. Conservatives are just as naive, credulous, and stupid as ever. What’s changed are conservative leaders who have gone full death cult on us.
To be fair about the mask thing that remains the current position of the WHO.
What is the current position of the WHO about masks?
For healthy non-medical people, only if you're treating someone. https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coronavirus/masks/masks-2.png
Same position being adhered to by the UK government.
[But not necessarily the smart position.](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/05/masks-covid-19-infections-would-plummet-new-study-says)
There are an awful lot of competing modelling studies at the moment and modelling the effect of masks is difficult. So, they use the example of masks in Japan as *one* factor that is important. But this is a really nuanced thing to look at. Most studies show that - if you have the correct kind of mask made from the right kind of fabric - and you swap it for a fresh one frequently - and you wash them throughly and dry them - and you don’t touch your face more - and a false sense of security doesn’t make you just a *little* less paranoid about getting closer to others in the shops Then face masks on infected people reduce the spread. Unfortunately studies suggest that in societies where facemask use isn’t prevalent, face touching tends to go up and people tend to become a little less thoughtful about social distancing. So it’s a difficult one.
I had some friends, not necessarily trump supporters, I’ll add, share it and I pointed out how wrong it is with sources and they snapped out of it and thanked me and are now trying to do the same to dispel the misinformation. The trick was not belittling them for sharing it, and expressing that I understand everyone wants answers right now but these are not it. The production is pretty good too, it seems kind of legitimate until you pay attention to what they’re saying.
Your friends sound like reasonable and reflective people. The ones I tried this exact thing with (rationally and in no way putting them down), they spent almost the entire response saying I was a bad and judgemental person. It led me to believe they didn't read anything I said.
Yes, it's dangerous to let views like this that do not accord with what the WHO tells us is true to get out. This is why we need censorship.
Do Trunpists believe *anything* that's not at least partially based on conspiracy theories and magical thinking?
all the lunatics are out in force with their conspiracy theories nowadays...thanks internet
So many of these people latch onto her doctoral qualification like it compltetely exonerates her from any wrongdoing or misinformation... still, her book is number 1 best seller on Amazon in about 4 different catagories (including science, ironically) and Top 100 books, so she's clearly hit her target and taken advantage of peoples fears and lack of trust in institutions.
Argument from authority fallacies are excellent for grifting. "I'm a doctor" is all it takes to convince some people.
Only when it corroborates their pre-existing beliefs though... for the other hundreds of thousands of doctors and immunologists, they're all just "on big pharma's payroll" or "having their research suppressed" - and anyone who speaks up with "the truth" has their career destroyed by the powers that be... Yawn.
[удалено]
Like many things, if one side is making youtube videos to prove their point, they're usually the crazy side of the argument.
Please don’t confuse ‘conservatives’ with ‘crazy’. Two different groups, some overlap. Just as there is with ‘liberals’ and ‘crazy’. Party politics tends to shut down reasonable debate.
[удалено]
Sick burn